Reading the Chunksters discussion
This topic is about
Les Misérables
Side-Reads
>
1/23 Les Miserables, Volume I, Books IV and V (Part I, Books IV and V), SPOILERS ALLOWED FOR THIS SECTION ONLY
date
newest »
newest »
1. How long did it take you to figure out that Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine are the two names for the same person? I saw this question before I had gotten to that section of the book, so I can't answer it. There were lots of hints: comments about his papers not being checked, his great strength, his lack of education, the candlesticks, mourning the Bishop, etc. If I hadn't known, I would hope I would have figured it out at least by the time the death of the Bishop came up.
2.According to the content of these two books, how can you define parental love?
For Fantine: she was willing to sacrifice everything for her daughter. She had practically nothing, and she willingly gave up her only asset, her beauty, to pay for her daughter's care.
For the Thernardiers: They wanted everything for their own daughters, but they cared nothing for their ward. They were selfish and greedy. The mother taught her daughters to be just as cruel as she is.
3. Is Fantine's life determined by her mistake or by her sin? Who is ultimately responsible for her misery and deprivation?
I think there is a lot of blame to go around. Fantine was naive to trust the Thernardiers (and Tholomyes before them). Considering her lack of education, her temperament, and her youth, that isn't too surprising. She wasn't worldly enough at this point to make good character assessments. She was trying to make the right choice when she left Cosette with the couple. Her later mistakes where she doesn't appeal to the mayor after losing her job and falls deeper and deeper into poverty trying to meet the couple's outrageous demands are understandable, if disappointing. Once someone starts to fall, it is very hard to get back up again.
4.Is Hugo commenting on bigger issues in his novel or is he telling us the story of the misfortunate and hapless lady?
He is definitely tackling bigger issues. At this point, there have been critiques of the purpose of the justice system (punishment vs. rehabilitation), what the proper role of the clergy is (living for charity or for power/advancement), the behavior of young adults, how businesses can be run (to elevate the status of just the boss or of all workers), what desperation and poverty can lead people to do, and the cruelty of busybodies. He also had scathing remarks about the Thenardiers and Javert.
5. In the spiritual opposition of 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' vs. 'Love the sinner. Period.', which side do you think Hugo takes?
Love the sinner. Period.
Zulfiya- I hope you are feeling better now.I found the passage about her teeth to be very moving too. I felt terrible for Cosette and Fantine while reading this week's section.
My favorite part was probably the part where Hugo describes the Thenardiers: "Theirs were those dwarf natures which easily become monstrous when any gloomy fire accidentally warms them. There was in the woman the basis of a brute, in the man the stuff for a beggar. Both were in the highest degree susceptible of that sort of hideous progress which is made in the direction of evil. There are crab-like souls which constantly recoil toward darkness, retrograde in life rather than advance, employ experience to augment their deformity, incessantly grow worse, and grow more and more covered with an increasing blackness. This man and this woman had souls of this sort." It was practically Dickensian in its contempt.
Other good lines:
"No one spies the actions of persons so much as those whom they do not concern."
"Some persons are wicked solely through a desire to talk, and this conversation, which is gossip in the drawing-room, scandal in the anteroom, is like those chimneys which consume wood rapidly; they require a great deal of combustible, and this combustible is their neighbor."
Still thoroughly enjoying Les Miserables. As for this week's section: I suspected fairly quickly that Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine were one and the same. I felt fairly confident in my suspicion when he mourned the death of the bishop and also the mention of the candlesticks. I feel his conversion is very sincere. I believe he kept the candlesticks as a reminder to himself of two things: a) he was at one time a thief, a "sinner" if you will and b) the bishop believed that Jean Valjean could change. The Bishop in essence gave Valjean a new life, a resurrection, when he (the Bishop)lied to the police and told them that he had given the candlesticks to Jean Valjean. After the incident on the road, where Valjean stole the money from the boy, he realized the tremendous faith that the Bishop had displayed. I think he also realized he was down to his last chance and he decided to live up to the faith that the Bishop had in him. He kept the candlesticks as a reminder to never backslide. I see Fantine's love as pure, powerful, and lasting. Yes, she was young and unmarried, but she loves Cosette with all of her being and will do anything for her. This is the purest love there is and one that most of us have experienced at one time or another. The Thenardiers, on the other hand, display a callous lack of feeling toward Cosette and Fantine. I realize that Hugo describes their love for their daughters as powerful, but I feel they are selfish and cold people. As parents themselves, they should realize the depth of love a parent feels for his or her child and not take advantage of and manipulate the situation to take advantage of Cosette and Fantine. So I guess I would describe them as cold an manipulative.
As for Fantine, I see her life as being the result of choices that turned out badly(though she was so young and innocent, that I don't ascribe any blame toward her)and the reality one choice opening some doors and closing others. The truth is that a number of complications (can them fate or random occurrences)can totally derail a person's life, no matter how hard they are trying. This is not always true and it's always important for people to try to overcome their life's circumstances. I feel Fantine persistently worked and strived to provide for Cosette first and foremost, and then herself, but a series of incidences - again Fate or coincidence - your choice - intervened and brought her to her knees. I don't know if I am qualified to comment on whether Hugo is commenting on society's ills as a whole, or merely telling the story of Valjean, Cosette, and Fantine. But I suspect that he is commenting on these large societal issues that we are, in one form or another, still grappling with today.
Anne wrote: "I think there is a lot of blame to go around. Fantine was naive to trust the Thernardiers (and Tholomyes before them). Considering her lack of education, her temperament, and her youth, that isn't too surprising. She wasn't worldly enough at this point to make good character assessments. She was trying to make the right choice when she left Cosette with the couple. Her later mistakes where she doesn't appeal to the mayor after losing her job and falls deeper and deeper into poverty trying to meet the couple's outrageous demands are understandable, if disappointing. Once someone starts to fall, it is very hard to get back up again." I agree - She was only wrong once when she trusted people. Parenthood is mostly sacrificial, and in her case this sacrifice had to be taken to the extreme. It is not accidental, that Mme. Madelaine calls her the most virtuous woman despite her social demise.
As far as powerful lines, there were plenty of them in the novel. I thoroughly enjoyed reading this section, and it often moved me to tears. I know - it sounds too sentimental. :-) And thank you for asking about my health. I do feel much better now. Gastro is quite unpleasant, but short-lived.
Lisa wrote: "As for Fantine, I see her life as being the result of choices that turned out badly(though she was so young and innocent, that I don't ascribe any blame toward her)and the reality one choice opening some doors and closing others. The truth is that a number of complications (can them fate or random occurrences)can totally derail a person's life, no matter how hard they are trying" I think that the message of this powerful story about Fantine is to warn people about their harsh habits of judging people too soon and to reconsider the concept of sin. Sin and crime are two different things, and one should only be punished for the crime he or she commits.
Hugo is also ambiguous about laws of religion and common law. He mentions that rules of Jesus Christ govern this world, although they are not always applied, but then he also mentions God, who seems to be quite different or detached from Jesus, who watches over everything and observes without interfering. It is more of a deistic approach. As I mentioned earlier, by the time the novel was being written and published he already had gone through apostasy and preferred to identify himself as a free thinker.
It is obvious that Hugo's philosophy in this novel is based on love, mercy, and forgiveness, similar to the one of the Sermon on the Mount, but he is struggling with the concept of someone with the Capital G.
Whether he was trying to placate the audience or is it indeed his true vision of the world is a big question. Regardless of his interior motives, the book makes people think and reconsider their actions.
And yes, right now I am truly enjoying the novel.
Zulfiya wrote: "And yes, right now I am truly enjoying the novel. "Me too :)
Several good lines, but I like what was already pointed out, about "No one spies the actions of persons so much as those whom they do not concern." So true, and so sad!So much hope and yet so much heartbreak in this section. Fantine loves her daughter so desperately and is literally willing to do anything for her. That's true parenting! The fact that she is being taken advantage of is due partially to her naiveté, partially to just plain horrid people. I mean, can you imagine? And yet we all know these people exist, whether we've known them ourselves or heard the news bulletins. And our world makes it easy for those people sometimes, although moreso in Hugo's day, which is probably why he's addressing it.
What's so distressing is that someone has to totally lose their former identity to make something of themselves again, as in Valjean's case. He could never be in his position if people knew he was a former convict! The same often holds true today, although the whole "American Dream" is to come up from nothing, or even worse circumstances, and make something of oneself. Do be denied that chance must be truly devastating. The world would never give him a chance to be honest about himself, sadly. He has to hide who he is in order to do any good in the world.
How long did it take you to figure out that Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine are the two names for the same person? I took M. Madeleine to be Jean Valjean from when he was first introduced and it was stated that nobody thought to ask this man for his passport after saving the two children from the fire. I have to say, though, that I started having doubts that I had misunderstood in taking them to be the same man when more of M. Madeleine's life in Montreuil was revealed, how much money had had saved and used for bettering the hospital and schools, and all the good he did. It seemed like two different people were presented, but when the candlesticks were noted to be in his room I was convinced it was the same man.
Is his transformation and new position believable? What is the significance of candlesticks for Jean Valjean and for us, readers?
To me, I felt as if I did not see presented in the "new" man of Jean Valjean much, if any, of his pain and struggles from his past. That is why I had doubts as to if this was the same man. The candlesticks are a reminder to Jean Valjean of the man who believed in him as a person who could be trusted to make the right choices in life if given the chance and not have his prior wrongs held against him. It is a reminder to him of how he lives his life now - to have goodwill to all the poor and unfortunate, to give them all a chance to better their lives, such as was given to him.
2. According to the content of these two books, how can you define parental love? Sacrificial? Enduring? Powerful? Possessive? (Please remember that there are two cases of parental love: Fantine's and the Thenardiers')
Sacrificial and enduring for sure in Fantine's case - giving up herself for the health and well-being of her daughter. In the Thenardiers' case, we are led to believe that the mother's love is extremely strong, even in spite of the fact that she was a horrible person to Cosette. I don't know if this mother loved her children to the extent that Fantine loved her own child. How could someone, a mother nonetheless, be so cruel to a helpless child? Perhaps her love, then, could be described more as possessive?
3. Is Fantine's life determined by her mistake (she believed the Thenardiers were a loving couple, and they are, but they love only thier own children) or by her sin? Who is ultimately responsible for her misery and deprivation?
That is a tough question! One that I don't know, but I am inclined to say that her life was determined by her mistake of leaving her daughter with the wrong people. She believed they were good people and could trust them. But...I suppose if I say that, then so goes with her mistake with having a daughter with a man who she thought loved her, she believed in him also. So if they are the same mistake - believing in what people tell you to be true, then I guess it was her first mistake that determined her life.
4. Is Hugo commenting on bigger issues in his novel or is he telling us the story of the misfortunate and hapless lady?
Hugo is not simply telling us a story of a misfortunate woman. Fantine was misfortunate but we see from the narrative that she is a good person in her heart and to her daughter. When she falls into despair trying to pay for her debts and send money for her daughter, most of the townspeople see her as a poor person and that's it. The people who she is in debt to don't take her situation into consideration, they just want their money. The man who offers money for her teeth, just wants her teeth to sell for more money - he doesn't see what he is doing to further destruct this poor woman's life. (although maybe these people are also on the brink of being poor and are looking out for themselves trying to make money?) The man who throws insults at her, and then snow down her back, thinks it's just fun because she is a poor prostitute. She is no longer a person who has feelings.
5. In the spiritual opposition of 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' vs. 'Love the sinner. Period.', which side do you think Hugo takes?
Hmmm...I think he is on the side of "Love the sinner. Period." He presents the Bishop and then M. Madeleine as people who love people regardless of what they have done in the past. If you do good, then more good will come of it - perhaps not for each instance, but overall after months, years, a lifetime of doing good for others you can't help but get good in return (be it for yourself or the people around you).
Please share your thoughts, and do not forget to mention the most memorable lines in these books Mine is the description of Fantine after she sold her front teeth to the dentist, the dark ugly hole in her mouth, and in her soul, the pink saliva, and the sunken eyes.
That was definitely a very powerful and descriptive scene! The scene where the man is being crushed by the cart was very moving for me. The realization for Jean Valjean that Javert suspected him of being a convict, and therefore the only man present who would be strong enough to save this man's life. How could Jean Valjean deny saving this man's life? If nobody else stepped up, he could not in his heart stand by and do nothing.
I just wanted to let you all know that I haven't chickened out! I'm just really behind and only partway through III! I will return once I get caught up!
Alana wrote: What's so distressing is that someone has to totally lose their former identity to make something of themselves again, as in Valjean's case. He could never be in his position if people knew he was a former convict! The same often holds true today, although the whole "American Dream" is to come up from nothing, or even worse circumstances, and make something of oneself. Do be denied that chance must be truly devastating. The world would never give him a chance to be honest about himself, sadly. He has to hide who he is in order to do any good in the world. Well said, Alana.
Zulfiya wrote: "I think that the message of this powerful story about Fantine is to warn people about their harsh habits of judging people too soon and to reconsider the concept of sin. Sin and crime are two different things, and one should only be punished for the crime he or she commits." Good conclusion, Zulfiya. I couldn't put what I was thinking quite into words, but you did it here - to say that there is a distinction between sin and crime and you should only be punished for your crimes.
Alana wrote: "He could never be in his position if people knew he was a former convict! The same often holds true today, although the whole "American Dream" is to come up from nothing, or even worse circumstances, and make something of oneself. "The situation in modern-day America is so tragic that people with minor offences or misdemeanors have to pay money to have their records expunged to have a chance to be more than a seasonal worker on a farm, so unfortunately the concept of American dream is quite dated nowadays.
Besides, the South and the Midwest, especially rural areas are riddled with bigotry, supremacy, and hatred of anything except white male Americans that it is hard to pursue dreams. And if someone does not go to church on Sunday, he or she, being black/Asian/Native American can be a flotsam and jetsam of life.
So I clearly see why Madelaine had to hide his true identity. Tolerance and second chances are values our society is still cultivating.
Linda wrote: " I think he is on the side of "Love the sinner. Period." He presents the Bishop and then M. Madeleine as people who love people regardless of what they have done in the past. If you do good, then more good will come of it - perhaps not for each instance, but overall after months, years, a lifetime of doing good for others you can't help but get good in return (be it for yourself or the people around you). "Excellent points, Linda!
His "love the sinner. Period" attitude is especially obvious when Fantine spits and calls Madelaine nasty names, but he keeps defending her because he believes in her innocence. If you remember, he also calls her later the most virtuous woman. So we, readers, are made to decide whether any Biblical sin is a sin and/or a crime. Being a Babylonian whore is a huge sin, but if you are saving the life of your child, it might be a sacrifice.
As for candlesticks, they are a code for us, readers, to find and follow characters despite the aliases, and symbolically they also help Madelaine/Valjean and readers to follow Light. There is and always be darkness, but once Valjean saw Light, and if it gets too dark, there is always candlelight of human kindness to remind us and him which way to go.
And then there is law and M. Javert ....
Finally have caught up. Since we've already moved on to the next two parts, I just wanted to say this. I felt that some of the most blame for Fantine's plight could be placed on the nosy coworker who dug up Fantine's past. That combined with the heartless, cruel and mercenary Thenardiers and how they took advantage of her.
I agree - Fantine's co-worker is a nasty individual, but it seems to be that there are a number of those around Fantine as there were a number of those people around Jean Valjean. It is only logical to assume the following. How about society in general? Society that is judgemental, prejudiced, nosy, and is willing to reap the benefits of every fallen being?
Hugo's outlook on the humanity is quite bleak. There is light in the form of Bishop and then M Madelaine aka Jean Valjean and there is naive and gullible Fantine. Others are either painfully indifferent or plain nasty.
I think his plea is even strong nowadays. We as human beings can be quite atrocious, and because of the mob mentality, prejudices, biases, and silly supremacy ideas, we all act together and conform in our nasty behavioral patterns.
I am happy that you managed to catch up. I hope you are enjoying the novel more now than in the previous section.
Yes, thank you! And I will be commenting on the next parts soon, I am VERY engaged now!
I'm almost caught up with the group!! I'll try to keep up now, but please forgive me if I fall behind again. I recently started a new job and am traveling constantly for work. I've been busy, but good! I first wanted to say that I am so thankful for the thoughtful discussions here! I love hearing your thoughts and favorite passages. I'm also loving this reading pace -- it's definitely nice to work through Les Mis slowly, setting aside time for reflection.
I appreciate the themes of the novel, and find the plot to be engaging, but on some levels this has been a difficult read so far. Fantine particularly has touched my heart. When she sold her teeth, I almost put down the novel for good. It just upset me too much. I know, I know.. I really should expect this from a novel called "the miserables". Still, this part made me wonder if perhaps this novel is just too emotionally taxing (as an aside, this is how I feel when I learn about factory farming practices. I'm a vegetarian, and I care about animals, but I just can't focus on the misery). I think, though, that I need to keep going since this is such an important work of literature. The group discussions are also motivating. :)
Re Fantine:
Zulfiya wrote: "Is Fantine's life determined by her mistake (she believed the Thenardiers were a loving couple, and they are, but they love only thier own children) or by her sin? Who is ultimately responsible for her misery and deprivation? ..."
Fantine was "sprung from the most unfathomable debts of social darkness". In my opinion her misery was not caused by her choices (mistakes / sins) -- rather, her misery and deprivation followed naturally from her position in society. When Hugo explains Fantine's love for Tholomyes, he does not describe it as simply immature and misguided. Fantine "worked to live: then, also to live, for the heart too has its hunger, she loved."
E :) wrote: "Fantine was "sprung from the most unfathomable debts of social darkness". In my opinion her misery was not caused by her choices (mistakes / sins) -- rather, her misery and deprivation followed naturally from her position in society. When Hugo explains Fantine's love for Tholomyes, he does not describe it as simply immature and misguided. Fantine "worked to live: then, also to live, for the heart too has its hunger, she loved." "I appreciate your point of view here, Everyman. I had trouble with thinking about what caused Fantine's misery - mistakes made on her part or something else. Although her path to misery ultimately originated in having a child to care for on her own, loving and believing in a fellow human being (Felix) is not a mistake - it is a need. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I take your opinion to be that had she not been lower in society, then Tholomyes would not have left her as he did? He was pressured into finding a wife who was higher in society similar to himself.
Linda wrote: "E :) wrote: "Fantine was "sprung from the most unfathomable debts of social darkness". In my opinion her misery was not caused by her choices (mistakes / sins) -- rather, her misery and deprivation..."Hi Linda,
Everyman and I are two different E's! :) My opinion, though, is that Fantine belonged to a class of women that were exploited by Tholoymes & Co. I don't see anything to suggest that Tholoymes ever cared seriously for her. If she were not an easy mark, he probably wouldn't have bothered.
E :) wrote: "Linda wrote: "E :) wrote: "Fantine was "sprung from the most unfathomable debts of social darkness". In my opinion her misery was not caused by her choices (mistakes / sins) -- rather, her misery a..."Oops! Sorry for the confusion there. Actually, I knew you two were different people, I must have read who the message was written by too quickly!
Also, thanks for the clarification on your point of view.
I agree that Fantine was just a trifle for Tholomyes. I never felt from what was revealed that he cared for her at all.
She is just a trifle, as you said, Victoria! I think Hugo even mentions in the same part that we would not deal with Tholomyes again. He is just a man who might have destroyed Fantine's life.
Zulfiya wrote: "How long did it take you to figure out that Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine are the two names for the same person? "Sorry, I got a bit behind in my reading, but thankfully a break week is coming and I'll catch up.
Meanwhile: I actually got that figured out pretty quickly. There were early clues that gave it away. When he rushed into the burning building, and they forgot to ask for his passport, that was a major clue, since Hugo had made so much of the yellow passport earlier. That made me suspicious, and then for one who came looking like a workingman but followed the put-others-first philosophy of the Bishop, that was another giveaway.
More interesting to me is whether we can really believe that transformation. I find it a hard lot to swallow. He is too good, it's great a change, for me to really believe it. Though it makes for great literature, I will say that for it.
Zulfiya wrote: "2. According to the content of these two books, how can you define parental love? Sacrificial? Enduring? Powerful? Possessive? (Please remember that there are two cases of parental love: Fantine's and the Thenardiers')"
I don't really call either of those healthy parental love.
Anne wrote: "He is definitely tackling bigger issues. At this point, there have been critiques of the purpose of the justice system (punishment vs. rehabilitation), what the proper role of the clergy is (living for charity or for power/advancement), the behavior of young adults, how businesses can be run (to elevate the status of just the boss or of all workers), what desperation and poverty can lead people to do, and the cruelty of busybodies."That's a wonderful list.
My question at this point would be: there are two basic approaches to the natural character of man. One is that man is basically good but can be turned bad by circumstance or weakness of character. This is the Adam and Eve approach. The other is that man is basically cruel and selfish, but that he (he/she) can be improved by the pressures of society, particularly the good aspects of law, custom, and religion -- exemplified for one example by Hobbes.
The question: which of these basic approaches do you think Hugo believes, or can't you tell yet?
Zulfiya wrote: "She is just a trifle, as you said, Victoria! I think Hugo even mentions in the same part that we would not deal with Tholomyes again. He is just a man who might have destroyed Fantine's life."Well, yes, he certainly had a major hand in destroying it but she didn't do much to un-destroy it, did she? She let her circumstances move her further and further down toward destruction.
Everyman wrote: " The other is that man is basically cruel and selfish, but that he (he/she) can be improved by the pressures of society, particularly the good aspects of law, custom, and religion -- exemplified for one example by Hobbes. "Individuality and communality are two opposing forces that ideally should keep us in a state of a fine balance. Who is more responsible in her social demise: a ruthless and indifferent society or individuals, including Fantine herself as an individual is a question that resonates strongly in the minds of readers. I fail to find an answer, but I do appreciate Hugo's effort to raise our awareness about people whose lives seem to spiral downward.
Zulfiya wrote: "I fail to find an answer, but I do appreciate Hugo's effort to raise our awareness about people whose lives seem to spiral downward. "I haven't been able to find very good ways of encapsulating in posts what I'm finding in the book, but I am fascinated by so much of Hugo's writing. It is extraordinarily subtle, but incredibly rich. I mark passage after passage in the margins. But none of it really rises to the level of being able to make a meaningful post about it.
For just one example, I opened the book at random and this is the first passage marked on the page (from Book 2 Chapter 5): "A moment later, he [the bishop] was in his garden, strolling, dreaming, contemplating, heart and soul wholly occupied with the great mysteries that God reveals at night to those whose eyes remain open." I love that thought, but how do you make a comment of it for discussion? And this happens to me on almost every page, that there is some phrase or sentence that strikes at me but isn't something I can make a coherent discussion thought about.
I agree - some lines are just too beautiful or too raw to comment on them. They are verbally undefinable.
I finished this passage last night and mainly agree with everything that's been said.I do want to mention - I was surprised at starting this section to find that Cosette was 3 years old already, and that Tholomyes had only left 10 months ago. At the end of the last section, I had assumed that Fantine was pregnant with his child and that he didn't know, and neither did her friends. But this means that the child was already 2 years old! This makes me think he is even more of a horrible person than I already thought he was, because he definitely left his own child intentionally. And additionally, did her friends not know about this child? The other girls just vanished from her life without a trace, I would have thought they would have been more sympathetic knowing that Fantine had a 2 year old daughter to support...
I almost immediately realized that M. Madeleine and Jean Valjean were one in the same, and I'm happy to now have a connection between the storylines. I'm glad that his transformation does seem to have stuck and that he stood up for Fantine despite her obvious hatred and maltreatment of him. I am hoping Javart won't cause too many problems for him, cause him to lose his Mayor position, etc, since he obviously knows about Valjean's background... especially after the incident with Fantine.
But wow... what has happened to Fantine is just tragic. So many people have taken advantage of her kindness and naivete and she is just digging deeper and deeper. Her story was heartbreaking and horrifying all at once. I hope that she will now go and retrieve her daughter and be able to pay her debts, and that her daughter will accept her and not be horrified by this short haired mother with no teeth. I can imagine this sort of mother being embarrassing to daughters of a certain age, no matter how grateful they are for being rescued from their horrible guardians.
Deana wrote: "I do want to mention - I was surprised at starting this section to find that Cosette was 3 years old already, and that Tholomyes had only left 10 months ago."The story of Fantine is a little bit choppy, but maybe Hugo has his reasons for this temporal jump. Personally, I would like to know what happened to her when she learned that she was pregnant and Tholomyes left her. I am sure this period before she met Thenardiers was not an easy ride for her ...
Deana wrote: "I finished this passage last night and mainly agree with everything that's been said.I do want to mention - I was surprised at starting this section to find that Cosette was 3 years old already, ..."
I also was confused by the fact that Cosette was 3 years old already, and I had the same questions that you brought up. At the time I read this, I thought perhaps I missed something while reading or got the timeline wrong, because otherwise it seemed there was a lot of information missing about Cosette's birth and first 2 years. I'm glad I didn't miss anything and it appears an omission on Hugo's part.
Linda and Zulfiya sorry for the delay in responding! actually in my book it says:
Ten months had slipped by since the "good joke".
What had happened during those ten months? We can well imagine.
And just before that, it tells of the mother holding a child:
A little girl of two or three.
My only conclusion can be that Cosette was already more that a year old when her father left!
This very much changed my view of the situation for the worse.
Actually I think even the end of book 3 supports this. At least in my edition it says:she had given herself to Tholomyes as to a husband, and the poor girl had his child.
Not the she was with child, or was carrying his child, or WOULD have his child. But had his child, past tense.
Deana wrote: "A little girl of two or three.My only conclusion can be that Cosette was already more that a year old when her father left!
This very much changed my view of the situation for the worse.
...."
Hmmm, interesting. It does seriously changes the situation for the worse, but are we dealing here with the same inconsistencies Dickens had in his books. Because they were monthly installments, there were some mistakes and oversights. I know some bloopers were corrected, but this might be the partial explanation of these discrepancies.
Honestly, I have lost count how many English versions of Les Mis exist. Every twenty years someone attempts to translate this novel again, and as a result, readers are slightly lost ...
And as if English translations were the only translations.
P.S. My translation says, "She was with the child" which literally means she was a parent or metaphorically means that she was pregnant. We need a French version, but if it is a verbatim translation, the ambiguity might still be present in the French phrase as well.
Deana wrote: "Actually I think even the end of book 3 supports this. At least in my edition it says:she had given herself to Tholomyes as to a husband, and the poor girl had his child.
Not the she was with ch..."
I came to the same conclusion, that at the end of book III it meant that she already had a child by him. But when I first read this, I thought it meant that she was pregnant. It wasn't until I read further and did the quick calculations of how long it had been and that Fantine had a child of 3, that I went back and reread this part and concluded that at the end of book III she already had a child....then I was confused by how she had been living at that point with an infant/toddler and how did Tholomyes interact with them in that regard.
Man, these translations are confusing! I guess we would have to read it in the French to be sure. I never thought about the inconsistencies introduced due to serial releases. I didn't realize that was a problem in Dickens either ... apparently my high school English classes failed me! I'll have to look into this, it seems interesting :)
1. Finally, we can see how the plot lines start converging, and Fantine and Jean Valjean both reside in the same town of Montreuil. How long did it take you to figure out that Jean Valjean and M. Madeleine are the two names for the same person?
Is his transformation and new position believable? What is the significance of candlesticks for Jean Valjean and for us, readers?
2. According to the content of these two books, how can you define parental love? Sacrificial? Enduring? Powerful? Possessive? (Please remember that there are two cases of parental love: Fantine's and the Thenardiers')
3. Is Fantine's life determined by her mistake (she believed the Thenardiers were a loving couple, and they are, but they love only thier own children) or by her sin? Who is ultimately responsible for her misery and deprivation?
4. Is Hugo commenting on bigger issues in his novel or is he telling us the story of the misfortunate and hapless lady?
5. In the spiritual opposition of 'Love the sinner, hate the sin' vs. 'Love the sinner. Period.', which side do you think Hugo takes?
Why does Hugo populate this novel with very likable and very despicable characters, and so far the world is painted in black and white? There are no in-between characters with the only exception of Jean Valjean, but even he started as a good one, but the punishment that was not commensurate with the crime, embittered him against the world, or the world turned away from him.
Please share your thoughts, and do not forget to mention the most memorable lines in these books. Mine is the description of Fantine after she sold her front teeth to the dentist, the dark ugly hole in her mouth, and in her soul, the pink saliva, and the sunken eyes. That description left an impression of ultimate gut-wrenching terror of human misery.
P.S. I apologize for posting late, but the stomach flu interfered with my plans.